Posts Tagged ‘Donald Trump’
In the course of my work on my book about the public radio pledge drive, I’ve found a lot of very strong opinions for and against NPR and the work it does. But in light of the most recent presidential election, this comment, from a 2005 Metafilter post, reflects the views of many angry progressives I’ve heard:
“NPR is what the neocons hate about middle-class liberals. They’re so comfortable and self-content that they lack guts. The neocon movement has some of the vilest people alive, but all of them have guts. They have brass huevos to bust in here and tear down our constitution and start pushing our armies around. We liberals are going to knit our brows and wring our hands while they take the bank and torch our wilderness.”
And, the other side:
“Your second to last paragraph was brilliant, if misdirected. Your caricature of the complacent yet occasionally whiny liberal is dead on. NPR isn’t to blame though. Take NPR for what it is, and not what you want it to be. It’s not IndyMedia Radio. It’s not the liberal counterpart to AM agitprop. NPR, instead, stands as the closest and most respectable form of true journalism I’ve ever seen in America. It caters to rational independent thought without spoon feeding the “proper” opinion like IndyMedia or Rush Limbaugh would. Presenting a national public debate, giving each mainstream* side equal time with their strongest minds, is about as principled as journalism comes. One would assume that in issues as “nuclear testing within 50 miles of low-income housing,” that the side with the best argument would clearly win in front of millions of listeners. Why would you want to stifle that? Where else would you find that debate? Crossfire? Hannity and Colmes?
* this is where I find the weakness in the debate format: the assumption that one of two mainstream sides of an issue have it right, or worse yet, the truth is always in the middle.”
The inside/out dynamic is just as powerful of the traditional left/right one. Angry people on both sides, as evidenced with Trump voters that would’ve just as easily voted for Bernie Sanders. You have to wonder if politics is turning a corner somehow, and if the kind of emotion, expressed by this public radio supporter, is coming into the mix. What will the outcome be? More angry people yelling at each other, or both sides getting a much clear picture of where the other really stands with less “intellect” in the way?
Decidedly uncomfortable looking Presidential spokesperson Sean Spicer tried to make the American public not notice the paltry number of attendees at the inauguration of President Donald Trump. Why the numbers were so small is anybody’s guess and debatable. What is not debatable, except only to the most strident supporters of Newspeak, is that even a significant fraction of voters for Mr. Trump seemed absent from the National Mall.
But this isn’t so much about those there or not there on Friday. Those voters may feel they’ve already spoken and other demonstrations aren’t necessary. It’s more about how easily can people be turned from the obvious to the shiny nothing. It’s about how quickly can we all come to love the new President with the speed of the Stockholm syndrome. It’s about with how much enthusiasm can a redirect of “alternative facts” send us careening off in an insignificant direction or observing the joy with which will we finally surrender the “hard work of liberty.” In the remaining time we have freedom of speech, they’re questions worthy of pursuit.
In college, we read a book called “Njal’s saga.” It was about a Viking family around the year 1000. The professor wanted us to take away from the story the fact that in ten centuries, people haven’t changed and continue to be swept up by their fears, angers, jealousies, desires for vengence, lust, prejudices, plots, quests for power and pitieous efforts to matter. And how, there have been, are and will always be those who are constantly trying to bend others to their will. But, as a trekkie and an ardent student of politics, Patrick Stewart as Captain Jean Luc-Picard got the last word.
While doing research for my book about the public radio pledge drive, I came across this quote from, “Public Radio and Television in America: A Political History” by Ralph Engelman.
Mr. Engelmen, in the conclusion of his book, was explaining whether or not Pacifica was trying to do too much by being totally self governing and at the same time, trying to give voice to all of the voiceless. He quotes John Mclaughlin of the Mclaughlin Group, in 1994;
“Because so many social and economic inequalities cut across group interests and prevent the realization of a truly democratic public sphere, an effective strategy would seek unity amongst transformational-oriented counterpublics for a collective struggle, to form coalitions that extend beyond micropolitics.”
This sounds a lot like employing the in/out argument versus the left/right argument to find common ground between those for whom, on the surface, there seems to be no common ground. I wanted to show that this idea, in the wake of the results of the presidential election, is not new thinking. An earlier blogpost referred to how many in the media missed the groundswell for President-elect Donald Trump while also not noticing how many Trump supporters would’ve also voted for Bernie Sanders. They wanted foundational change and they were looking at both ends of the political spectrum to get it.
These ideas probably just dive beneath the surface once they have served their purpose in earlier times and resurface into public consciousness when they are needed again. Perhaps in the future, news and public affairs programs will look for more of these non-traditional, counterintuitive connections. Maybe finding them will spark more meaningful conversations across groups rather than on the echo chambers within groups.
Billy Bush’s cancelled appearance on NBC’s Today show is justified. But let’s take a step back and look at this with a little more distance.
It’s likely what happened in the days leading up to that 2005 interview with Donald Trump was there was a lot of coordination between Trump’s people and Bush’s managers at Access Hollywood. Mr. Trump and his “The Apprentice” were riding high in the ratings and no doubt the network really wanted his face on their program to nudge them even more.
Also no doubt, after that video was shot, everybody from the camera operator, to Mr. Bush, to someone above Mr. Bush’s in his chain of command watched the video in some edit bay somewhere. Maybe several somebodys watched it. We don’t know if that person or those people also snickered and laughed. We do know Mr. Bush did. And, as everyone who works in a company knows, management wants to know everything but wants deniability in case anything goes South.
We also know that video didn’t see the light of day until about 72 hours ago. Until then, that video and everything it represented was kept like a family secret in Access Hollywood and NBC Universal until somebody looking to juice things up remembered to go through the archive searching for any file containing the keyword “Trump”.
Like any public relations disaster, the first people to fall are the footsoldiers, the expendables. But over time, the wheels of corporate justice start to grind slowly forward like the gears in a Don Quxiote windmill and everybody gets outed.
There was an interesting conflict between broadcasting necessity and journalistic necessity this morning on CBS This Morning. Susanne Craig and David Barstow, both reporters of the NY Times, co-wrote a story which they broke about the taxes of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
Apparently, Ms. Craig discovered three pages of Mr. Trump’s 1995 tax return in her NY Times mailbox. After she and Mr. Barstow verified the authenticity of the pages with the tax professional that actually prepared the return the pages seemed to come from, the reporters released the story. The reporters were asked if they feared legal consequences for writing the story based on documents Mr. Trump’s campaign said were obtained “illegally”. They responded that a tenet of journalism is that if a reporter does nothing to solict the receipt of such documents and they are verified as true, they can report the story as factual and be held harmless.
Ms. Craig spoke succinctly and briefly about how she got the documents, while Mr. Barstow was extremely measured in how he talked about conversations with staff attorneys, odd presentations of numbers on the form itself and getting the preparer to verify his work.
But because he took so much time carefully going through those aspects of the story, Charlie Rose and Gayle King began getting cues from their director that time was running out and that they need to wrap so the show could go to a break.
It was ironic that the journalists at that table, all of which were seeking the truth in the spirit of the First Amendment, were also essentially at odds over the amount of time available to tell that truth.
The chasm between TV news and newspaper reporting has been an open secret for decades. If you notice, TV people are often reading stories written by newspaper people. Newspapers reporting has been and remains the backbone of American journalism while TV is the compromise that adds pictures and speeds things up while removing much of the useful nutritional information.
I understand the program clock. I understand affiliates down the line waiting their turn to insert local news, weather and traffic. And I understand the need to make sure advertiser’s commercials get aired since ultimately, that’s the fount from which everything flows.
It just made me a little sad that such an important story was abbreviated. To read the full, fascinating article at your leisure, visit http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html